Anyone who has had a brush with conservative economic or political principles will readily recognize the language that is used to communicate such simplistic ideas. “Taxation” becomes “redistribution of wealth”; structured tax brackets become “punishment for success”; social welfare programs become “the government teat”; and anything less than laissez-faire capitalism becomes “socialism.”

These terms are great for framing the position, but they entirely misrepresent the reality of the underlying ideas. What “redistribution of wealth” is taking place?

Capitalists are eager to point out that nothing is free. And it’s true. But they ignore the hidden costs of the “invisible hand” of capitalism.

Any economic system—be it capitalism, communism, socialism, or some derivative thereof—requires attendant systems to settle disputes and provide for a consistent, equitable basis for trade. If you sell a widget, you want to get paid a fair amount for that widget. Who sets the fair basis for valuation? I could offer a whatsis in exchange for your widget, but how do you know how much the whatsis is worth? And how do I know that a widget is worth one of my whatsises? So we have money, banks, and the Uniform Commercial Code.

What if I take your widget and say “fuck you” and walk away without paying? Don’t say that you’d come after me to enforce your own law … because I’ll enforce my own law right back. So how do you propose to ensure that I pay for the widget I just took from you? There would need to be an independent mechanism to settle disputes, such as a judiciary, and a set of laws that could be consistently enforced … otherwise we’re back to some sort of enlightened anarchy.

And those are all functions of government. And since government is not a commercial enterprise, the funding has to come from somewhere—that “somewhere” is called “taxes.” If you don’t want to pay taxes, then explain to me how a government runs for free. I’m sure that economists across the globe and throughout history would be interested understanding how that is accomplished.

From where will your fire and police services come? Who will pave your roads, build your bridges (to nowhere or somewhere), and settle your disputes? Who will provide you with a consistent basis for fair trade/exchange? Who will make sure that your water is clean and your foods free of toxic chemicals? Who will educate your children? Who will defend the country in the event of invasion?

If you think taxes are okay, but don’t want to pay anything more than your “fair share,” then tell me what your “fair share” really is.

If you think government spending is wasteful, then tell me which government spending we can do away with.

If you want to argue that our government is not in the business of welfare—as I recently heard from a retrograde intellectual—then show me were our constitution provides for it:

Oh really?

Income taxes were implemented via a constitutional amendment, which makes them … gasp! … constitutional.

But let’s not stop there. There’s also the comment that, “our Constitution has no allowance for welfare.” No? The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution says, verbatim: “We the People of the United States, in order to … promote the general Welfare, … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Granted, social welfare initiatives like Social Security & Medicare are also responsible for a significant part of the overall national debt. But they are also necessary … necessary because of the conservative economic policies that focus on individual accumulated wealth without regard to the consequences on the rest of us.